ExpandCollapse

Active Member

I disagree with such a radical downsizing of the United States military. However, I think that even JSM III as president would have to be prudent in defense expenditures as all areas of the federal budget will have to shoulder a share of spending restraint if we are to bring the budget into balance without increasing taxes and stop the financial hemorrhaging that we as a nation are suffering.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

No weapons for us means we are left without defense. What in the world make shim think he is going to have the power as the president of this country that he can disarm other countries, make them do anything. Sounds like he is quite a bit mixed up.
Sounds like his plans for ruling go beyond the USA.
I'm with Sue, this man is scary.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Where I'm currently at, I can't get streaming video, so haven't seen what this one says.

Based on the replies, I can only make an assumption, and provide a fictional story, based on historical events.

There were once two tribes. One tribe used bows and arrows, and clubs, to kill their food. The second tribe decided to swear off of such things, and only farmed. One season, the first tribe was unable to kill as much as they needed; they saw that the second tribe had an abundant harvest. The second tribe's leader sat with the first tribe's leader, and offered to share some of their food, but with the provision that they would still have plenty for themselves. The first tribe's leader looked at the other leader, looked at the abundance of food, raised his club, and killed the other leader. The first tribe then took all the harvest, killing anyone who tried to stop them.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

No weapons for us means we are left without defense. What in the world make shim think he is going to have the power as the president of this country that he can disarm other countries, make them do anything. Sounds like he is quite a bit mixed up.
Sounds like his plans for ruling go beyond the USA.
I'm with Sue, this man is scary.

Click to expand...

Reducing the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons was an objective for some time before the Neocons took over with their stated objective of world conquest. I'd like to see the US back down into a powerful and defensible position but one that does not insist on us being "Master's of the World." I'd like to see us rely more on on our allies rather than unilaterally invading other nations. I'm tired of us focusing on war most of the time.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Reducing the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons was an objective for some time before the Neocons took over with their stated objective of world conquest. I'd like to see the US back down into a powerful and defensible position but one that does not insist on us being "Master's of the World." I'd like to see us rely more on on our allies rather than unilaterally invading other nations. I'm tired of us focusing on war most of the time.

Click to expand...

1-

----before the Neocons took over with their stated objective of world conquest.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see the printed version of this accusation. (incidentally, I still do not really know what "neocon" entails.)

2-

----but one that does not insist on us being "Master's of the World.

Click to expand...

Ditto!

3-

I'd like to see us rely more on on our allies rather than unilaterally invading other nations.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see these as the only two options. Perhaps you can be more specific?

I have no problem with the US being the strongest (as opposed to your "master of-" ) in the world.

This is a far better negotiating position than any other option for us.

But then perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position, and if so please clarify.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!